Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain Rewriting the Biblical Exodus Narrative from an African American Perspective Julia Zeppenfeld Zora Neale Hurston‟s novel Moses, Man of the Mountain (1939) is a groundbreaking rewriting of the biblical Exodus story from an African American perspective. It stands in a long tradition of adaptations of the Exodus narrative, which has always been a key component in the African American literary landscape. Despite the thematic prominence, the novel did not receive much attention at the time of release due to its progressiveness. Hurston differed from other African American authors because she did not adjust to established standards of white American writers, but was instead keen to promote black consciousness. This becomes apparent in Moses, Man of the Mountain, where the biblical Judeo-Christian concept is questioned by foregrounding African American religious and cultural traditions. This essay will investigate to what degree the biblical narrative was adopted, but also adapted and altered to represent the complexity of cultural and ethnic identities. I will argue that Moses, Man of the Mountain is an aesthetic deformation of the biblical Exodus narrative to raise awareness for cultural and religious diversity. Due to the election of Donald Trump, the topic of racism has recently been reinvigorated in the United States. In August 2015, Trump stated in a radio interview that his favorite biblical verse was “an eye for an eye” (McCaskill 2016), which can be found in Exodus 21. Strongly differentiating between they and we, Trump interprets this biblical verse as an invitation to retaliate against foreigners by claiming that the US is taken advantage of by other countries (ibid.). Trump‟s statement runs counter to the interpretation of this verse by most Jewish and Christian theologians, who construe the so-called lex taliones as a law for the regulation and restriction of disproportionate revenge (Krüger 2016: 371). Neither does biblical verse refer to foreigners. On the contrary, AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 43 (2018) · Heft 1 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Julia Zeppenfeld 46 there are numerous verses in the immediate biblical context which demand xenophilia and the protection of the alien (Ex 22: 20, 23: 9). Not only does Trump‟s statement reveal his insufficient biblical knowledge, but also the dangerous arbitrariness in biblical interpretation. The biblical Exodus story has been a key component in the American literary and political landscape. For African Americans, it is a text of paramount importance. Especially during the time of slavery, African Americans embraced the Exodus narrative as a source of perennial hope and consolation. It is the biblical narrative most frequently acknowledged and adapted by African Americans (Callahan 2006: 83). They have been inclined to identify with the Hebrew slaves in the Bible and thereby found a way to denounce slavery as an unjust condition which can, however, be changed. The responsibility to resolve the oppressive situation shifted from the active initiative of the slaves themselves towards a greater reliance on divine liberation (ibid. 86). African Americans thus relied on God to free them from slavery, just like he had liberated the Hebrew slaves. The Exodus narrative serves as a unifying script for African Americans. As Callahan stresses, they could claim neither common territory nor ancestry; instead “the Exodus was an event that gave rise to a collective identity” (2006: 116). By identifying with a collective literary community, namely the Hebrew slaves in the Bible, African Americans also felt connected to each other. Due to its prominence among African Americans, the Exodus narrative was frequently retold. Zora Neale Hurston‟s novel Moses, Man of the Mountain 1 , which was published in 1939, is one these re-narrations. Written during a time of political oppression in Europe and racism on both sides of the Atlantic, a mirror was held up to the American readership of Hurston‟s novel. Increasingly, the Jim Crow laws were found not to differ profoundly from the racism of the Nazis which had emerged in the 1930s (Rasberry 2015: 404). African American soldiers, who returned from the battlefields of the First World War, had hoped to gain respect, but instead they had to face persistent discrimination and segregation in the United States (ibid. 405). Many African Americans responded with resentment and riots. They had experienced social equality during their time in Europe and no longer wanted to accept discrimination and segregation at home (Farrar 2005: 354). Additionally, the need for arms production in the First World War led to the “greatest demographic shift in American history” (Callahan 2006: 129), the Great Migration. Many African Americans left the agricultural South and resettled in the industrial North, also in the hope of fleeing the oppressive social situation caused by Jim Crow laws. This mass movement became 1 In this contribution, Zora Neale Hurston‟s novel Moses, Man of the Mountain will be referred to as Moses. Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 47 known as the Exodus fever (ibid. 129). Therefore, the First World War marks a turning point for the struggle against segregation, which was further strengthened by the experiences of the Second World War (Rasberry 2015: 404). It seemed increasingly hypocritical to oppose Nazi racism without addressing racial problems in the home country. This awareness, combined with the resettlement in cities, gave rise to a vibrant African American literary scene. Whereas disorientation and hopelessness was expressed by white American authors like Hemingway and Fitzgerald, who became known as the Lost Generation, African American writers gained self-confidence and were keen to promote black identity (West 2017). Harlem was the center for this production of literary pieces addressing black consciousness, today known as the Harlem Renaissance. Zora Neale Hurston emphatically promoted black consciousness and became a significant writer of the Harlem Renaissance (Kaplan 2015: 232). The major themes of the Renaissance, namely culture, identity and race, are operative in Hurston‟s novel Moses. She not only wrote about African American religious traditions, but virtually recreated the rhythms of their oral transmission by including folklore, spirituals, various dialects and African American religious traditions like hoodoo in her novel (Bell 1987: 30). Hurston wrote about African American culture in an anthropologically informed way; thus, she traveled to Haiti to research African American cultural and religious traditions (West 2005: 145). Subsequently, she also included her insights in Moses, and the novel contains the diversity of religious concepts related to the Exodus narrative she came to know in her hometown Eatonville, Florida (West 2005: 146), in Harlem where she moved in 1925 (Wright 2003: 44), and on the Caribbean islands (West 2005: 146). The Bible is a key element for “black and white religious traditions” (Caron 2000: 19) during the Harlem Renaissance, representing an influential factor of culture and religion. Many writers of the Harlem Renaissance also published anti-religious writings (Lackey 2009: 580). Christianity and the Bible were deprecated because Scripture had often been used to oppress, terrorize or degrade Blacks. Thus, the Bible was perceived as ambivalent since it was liberating and exploitative at the same time. On the one hand, it had helped people to endure slavery, but on the other hand, it had been used as a tool to justify the peculiar institution (Lackey 2009: 581). Furthermore, the Bible was discussed in a nationalist context. Whereas most authors during the Harlem Renaissance did not involve themselves in the question of nationalism, Hurston emphasized “the pitfalls […] of nationalism” (Farebrother 2007: 337) in her literary work. Because of its themes of nationalism, identity, race and ethnicity, Hurston‟s Moses can be considered a groundbreaking literary text of the Harlem Renaissance, although it did not receive much attention at the time of its release Julia Zeppenfeld 48 because it was too progressive for most contemporaries (Birch 1994: 44). Approximately twenty years later, “when a new aesthetic of racial pride emerged” (Delbanco 1997: 106), Hurston‟s novels were reread and admired. This shows the continuous relevance of Hurston‟s novel, especially today in times of renewed racist movements. As the title of Hurston‟s novel shows, it focuses on the character of Moses. In the African American tradition, Moses is significant because he led the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt. African Americans who suffered from slavery in the US could relate to the situation of the Hebrews and Moses was perceived as a symbolic figure of liberation and hope (Delbanco 1997: 104). Important activists in African American history like Martin Luther King have referred to the Exodus story in their speeches and to Moses‟ leadership (Callahan 2006: 96). As Hurston argues in the author‟s introduction, there are various concepts of Moses and “Africa has her mouth on Moses” (Hurston 2016: vii). Thus, reducing the figure of Moses to the verbatim biblical representation would fall short because the biblical story is told from a Judeo-Christian perspective. In contrast to the emphasis on Moses‟ role as mediator between God and the Israelites in Scripture, Moses himself “is worshiped as a god” (ibid. viii) in the African American tradition. He is powerful, not only as mediator of the Ten Commandments, but also because of his own deeds and his “mystic powers” (Hurston 2016: viii). I am arguing that Hurston questions the established Judeo-Christian concept of Moses in her novel by foregrounding non-biblical aspects. She creates a complex character with a mixture of various, even contradictory, character traits and behavior patterns. Thus, Moses becomes, as Thompson holds, “an absolutely singular (yet hybrid) cultural figure” (2004: 397). Due to Hurston‟s reinvention of the Moses figure, he does not appear archaic and static, but complex and diverse. Not only does Hurston destabilize the Judeo-Christian concept of Moses in her novel, but she also criticizes Moses‟ function as the ideal liberator in the African American tradition (Lackey 2009: 583). Thus, she criticizes male dominance, the notion of solitary leading figures, and an uncritical acceptance of existing concepts. I argue that the representation of ethnic hybridity challenges the notion of a community based on a simplified categorization of ethnicity. This essay will investigate to what degree the biblical narrative was adopted, but also adapted and altered by Hurston to represent the complexity of cultural and ethnic identities by adding African American traditions. With the help of a detailed comparison between the biblical text and the novel, I will identify alterations and reveal criticisms of the well-established biblical concept, arguing that Moses is an aesthetic deformation of the biblical Exodus narrative to raise awareness for cultural and religious diversity. Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 49 1. “I am not a Hebrew! ” — Moses, the Egyptian The novel and the biblical story have similar starting points: the birth of a Hebrew baby, Moses, during a time of genocide in Egypt. The Pharaoh of Egypt has proclaimed a law requiring the murder of every male Hebrew baby. To save her male newborn from murder, a Hebrew mother puts her baby into “an ark” (Ex 2: 3; Hurston 2016: 26) and assigns her daughter to observe what happens to the infant. In the Bible the unnamed Hebrew daughter witnesses the Pharaoh‟s daughter find the ark and take the baby in (Ex 2: 4-8). In the novel, however, the Hebrew daughter, who is identified as Miriam, falls asleep and thus loses track of her baby brother. Although she observes that the Egyptian Princess and her maids find a basket, she is not sure whether it is the same basket because she does not see her brother (Hurston 2016: 26). To avoid punishment for falling asleep, she tells her mother that the Egyptian Princess has found the baby (ibid. 29). At first, Miriam seems insecure, but gradually she believes in her own lie and invents further stories. Her father, however, does not believe her. The servants in the palace send the Hebrew mother away with the words that there is “no new baby to be nursed” (Hurston 2016: 34). They say that the only baby in the palace is already a couple of months old and that it is the son of the Egyptian Princess and her deceased Assyrian husband. In the Bible the Hebrew mother nurses her child by order of the princess (Ex 2: 9). Whereas there is no doubt in the Bible that Moses grows up in the Egyptian palace, it remains uncertain in the novel, though it is not unlikely. Both scenarios are possible - either the Egyptian Princess has pulled the Hebrew baby out of the water and adopted it or it is her biological child. Consequently, the ethnic background of Moses remains uncertain (Thompson 2004: 399). Moses grows up without questioning his ethnic origin. He feels comfortable in the palace and everyone, especially his Egyptian mother, admires him for his handsomeness and his military capabilities (Hurston 2016: 36). In reaction to Moses‟ claim to improve the Hebrews‟ situation, his uncle Ta-Phar, who is the leader of the anti-Hebrew party, gives currency to the rumor of Moses being a Hebrew. Moses learns about the rumor because his Ethiopian wife reveals her displeasure about his supposed Hebrew origins (ibid. 63). He is shocked by the accusation and repeats that he is “not a Hebrew.” (ibid. 64) This discussion is not included in the Bible. There Moses identifies with the Hebrews from the very beginning and calls them “his brethren” (Ex 2: 11). In the novel, however, he never feels like one of them but talks about “those Hebrews” (Hurston 2016: 122) or “all these people” (ibid. 130). The determiners “those” and “these” stress the distance between him and the Hebrews. Moses never includes himself by using first-person plural pronouns. He only links himself to the Hebrews in front of the Pharaoh, when he says: “let my people go” (ibid. 144). He repeats this phrase before each plague, Julia Zeppenfeld 50 but it is striking that he quotes God in most cases: “The Lord says, „Pharaoh let my people go.‟” (ibid. 151) Thus, Hurston‟s Moses avoids clear-cut identification with the Israelites. He appears as the messenger, who is closer to God than to the people. Hurston‟s Moses points out that he is the one talking to God and transmitting his messages, but he is not an integral part of the people. In the Bible Moses verbalizes his connection with the Hebrews, for example by saying to the Pharaoh: “We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto the LORD” (Ex 10: 9). The firstperson possessive pronoun “our” is repeated six times, showing the strong identification of Moses with the Hebrews in the Bible. In turn, the Hebrews in Hurston‟s novel do not accept Moses as one of them, especially in times of crisis. It becomes obvious in these situations that they do not trust Moses and that they believe that he deceives them given his supposed Egyptian ethnicity. For example, when the Egyptian army follows them, the Hebrews suspect betrayal: “I always knowed it was some trick in it. That man is pure Egyptian and Pharaoh his brother. He just toled us of so his brother could butcher us in the wilderness” (Hurston 2016: 189). Moses‟ position among the Hebrews is difficult. Although he fights for them and protects them, they frequently question his motives. They cannot believe that an Egyptian would help them because they are not used to friendly acts on the part of their oppressors (ibid. 134). In the Bible the Hebrews also murmur against Moses (e.g. Ex 15: 24, 16: 2), but without showing distrust in his motives. They do not claim that he is betraying them, but instead they are frustrated, exhausted, or hungry and blame Moses for their situation. Not only the people of Israel believe that he is Egyptian, but also his wife Zipporah and her family. They think that he sounds like an Egyptian (Hurston 2016: 92). Aspects of dialect and language are important in the discourse of identification and group formation in Hurston‟s novel. Moses stresses that he does not know the language of the Hebrews. He names this as a reason for refusing God‟s order. By saying “I don‟t talk their language. I don‟t talk their thoughts. I don‟t know the first thing about them and they know next to nothing about me” (ibid. 130), he emphasizes that it is not only a linguistic, but also an ethnic problem. He thereby stresses that the language barrier affects mutual comprehension. In the Bible, language is not an issue; it is never suggested that Moses and the Hebrews speak different dialects or languages. There are no linguistic communication problems. However, Moses suffers from a lack of rhetoric in the Bible which is not mentioned in the novel. Moses responds to God‟s order to lead the people out of Egypt: “I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue” (Ex 4: 10). In the novel it is frequently mentioned that Moses is intelligent and literate (Hurston 2016: 37, 112). Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 51 Insufficient eloquence could darken this ideal representation. In the novel Moses predicts communication problems resulting from ethnic differences; in the Bible Moses fears to fail for personal reasons. Whereas Moses doubts his own abilities in the Bible, the fear seems to be disconnected from the individual in the novel. Instead it is a general issue of communication among people from different origins. In the Bible the rhetorical deficiency is not mentioned again, but in the novel Moses‟ fear of not being able to communicate with the Hebrews is a recurring topic. When Moses comes back to Egypt to free the Hebrews they question his motives because they think that he is an Egyptian. In this context they also talk about his name: “They call him Moses, because they say he came out of the water in some way or other” (Hurston 2016: 134). This is the translation of the Hebrew word mšh, but there is also the Egyptian word mś/ mśj, which means “to give birth” (Gertz 2008). Although they identify Moses as an Egyptian, they connect the name to the Hebrew stem. The translation refers back to the story at the beginning of the novel, and thereby indirectly suggests that Moses was indeed saved by the Egyptian Princess. Nevertheless, they seem to have forgotten about that story. In the Bible his identity is not questioned, and the Hebrews accept him as one of theirs from the beginning. Hurston‟s Moses cannot identify with any ethnic group. After leaving Egypt and crossing over, he faces an identity crisis. The act of crossing is a turning point in Moses‟ life. The sentence “He had crossed over” is repeated thirteen times within the course of twenty-one sentences (Hurston 2016: 78). At first, Moses appears to be relieved, but he quickly feels “empty as a post hole” (ibid. 78) because he thinks that he is “none of the things he once had been” (ibid.), especially “not an Egyptian” (ibid.). Consequently, Moses is a person between different ethnicities - Hebrew, Egyptian and Midianite. Wright states that Moses is “a mulatto” (2003: 64). She argues that Hurston, thereby, questions categorizing people based on their ethnicity (ibid. 64). Although it is uncertain who Moses‟ parents are in the novel, it is certain that he is the child of an interracial couple, whether of the Egyptian Princess and her deceased Assyrian husband or of the red-haired and white-skinned Jochebed and her Hebrew husband Amran (Hurston 2016: 11). By leaving the identity of Moses‟ biological parents open, Hurston stresses that his identity does not depend on the ethnicity of his parents. As Thompson puts it: “Hurston does not consider race to be first, but instead places culture disembodied from a biological imperative in the lead position” (2004: 398). Moses is influenced by people around him, and because they are from various cultures, he can be described as a cultural hybrid. Farebrother argues that Hurston not only blurs distinctive lines between different ethnicities, but also criticizes the monotheistic concept of Judaism (2007: 339). She draws connections between Hurston‟s Moses, Man of the Mountain and Freud‟s Moses and Monotheism, which was also Julia Zeppenfeld 52 published in 1939. In Moses and Monotheism, it is also suggested that Moses was an Egyptian (ibid. 333). Freud concludes that the monotheistic religion of Judaism has its roots in the polytheistic religious traditions of Egypt, meaning that the Egyptian culture is a driving force for the development of Judaism in the shape of Moses (ibid. 336, 339). Farebrother determines Judaism to be a “fusion of Egyptian and Hebrew cultural strands” (2007: 341). In the novel Moses embodies this fusion by being a cultural hybrid. Meisenhelder argues that the notion of Moses being Egyptian emphasizes the African tradition since Egypt is an African country (2015: 219). All in all, Hurston depicts Moses as a man without a definable ethnicity. He is in-between different cultures and races and cannot be defined as either Egyptian or Hebrew. Hurston‟s Moses appears as a leading figure, unifying a group “of nearly two million” (Hurston 2016: 198) Hebrews. Farebrother concludes that “something other than racial affiliation holds these people together” (2007: 343), namely the idea of building a nation, which consists of various races and cultural and religious traditions. For that a powerful leader, who cuts back on his own desires, is essential (ibid. 348). Nevertheless, nationalism is critically examined in Moses. Hurston‟s Moses struggles because of his leading position, and the mission of forming a nation affects him negatively. He feels isolated from the people (Hurston 2016: 99, 130, 190, 196, 200) because he has “given up everything else [he] wanted in life for the sake of this mission” (ibid. 245). The Hebrews constantly mutter and grumble (ibid. 200, 201, 202, 205) because they distrust Moses. In the Bible the Hebrews also frequently “murmur against Moses” (Ex 15: 24, 16: 2.7.8.9.12, 17: 3), but it is not stated that Moses feels lonely. On the contrary, he feels like a Hebrew and is closely connected to Aaron and Miriam. Whereas Moses does not realize that Miriam and Aaron are his siblings in the novel and the Hebrews also question that Aaron, Miriam and Moses are relatives (Hurston 2016: 140), the kinship with Aaron and Miriam is undoubted in the Bible (Ex 4: 14). Moreover, Moses‟ leadership increases in violence as the novel develops. This culminates in the murder of his brother. Moses kills him because he fears that Aaron could harm his mission of building a nation by undermining Moses‟ authority (Hurston 2016: 274-275). Moses claims that “nothing and nobody has been spared to make this nation great” (ibid. 275) and thereupon kills Aaron. Hurston‟s Moses seems fanatic in conducting his mission. In the Bible Aaron dies peacefully in old age (Deut 10: 6). Moses is less powerful and brutal in the Bible. Thompson argues that Hurston criticizes “fascist power” (2004: 407) by depicting Moses as a violent and isolated leading figure. At the beginning of the novel Moses is likeable, just, and good-natured, but in the course of his mission he develops negative character traits. In a letter addressed to her contemporary Carl Van Vechten, Hurston calls Moses a “dictator” because Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 53 he forced laws on the Hebrews, which they did not want (Hurston 2007: 530). Furthermore, she states that he treated the Hebrews as inferiors and that he behaved violently. Thereby, she criticizes repressive leadership in general (Lackey 2009: 577). Thus, Hurston‟s Moses is ambivalent since he liberates and restrains the Hebrews simultaneously. On the one hand, he leads them out of slavery in Egypt, but on the other hand, they still feel oppressed by his laws. They think that they have “swapped one bossman for another one.” (Hurston 2016: 181). Hurston questions the ideal depiction of Moses in cultural and literary discourses. In her novel, negative character traits and the downside of leadership and responsibility are not concealed. Moses‟ ancestry is unclear in the novel. It is frequently mentioned in the novel that he is either an Egyptian or a Hebrew. Moses himself feels insecure and is torn between two ethnicities. He is an ethnic hybrid in the novel. This aspect is non-biblical. Moses is not called an Egyptian in the Bible, and by displaying the ambiguity of Moses‟ ethnic origin, Hurston adds another layer to the biblical story. The story becomes topical since race, racial segregation and nationalism were frequently discussed in the late 1930s. Especially for African Americans, this was of key importance because they were torn between assimilation and delimitation in the United States (Delbanco 1997: 106). Hurston promoted “black communal pride” (Caron 2000: 6). Diversity should prevent assimilation for the purpose of achieving homogeneity. Thus, Moses is complex character, who was influenced by various cultural and religious traditions. 2. “The finest hoodoo man in the world” — Moses, the Magician A key difference between the representations of the Moses figure in Hurston‟s novel and in Scripture is Moses‟ ability to perform magic. Whereas magic is rarely mentioned in the biblical Exodus story, it is a key feature of the novel. Magic is a component of the Exodus story in the Bible; however, it is not associated with Moses, but with the Egyptians. Moses is never called a magician or a sorcerer in Scripture. Only some of Pharaoh‟s adherents are magicians and the Pharaoh calls them to compete with Moses and imitate his deeds (Ex 7: 11.22, 8: 7.18, 9: 11). Consequently, Moses is not an independent magician, but a divine messenger in the Bible. Moses‟ divine actions are in stark contrast to the magical acts of the Egyptians. In the Bible Moses is not the initiator of the plagues, but he rather obeys God‟s order. The first three plagues are executed by Aaron. Moses delivers God‟s message, and God demands that Aaron raise the rod to arouse the plagues (Ex 7: 10, 8: 5.17). It is also Aaron who transforms the rod into a serpent (Ex 7: 10). In the novel Aaron is not involved, and instead Moses evokes all ten plagues. In the Julia Zeppenfeld 54 Bible God gives orders to Moses or acts without Moses‟ help (Ex 8: 25, 12: 29). In the context of the ten plagues (Ex 7: 1-12: 36), the word “hand” appears 16 times in the Bible. In Scripture “the hand” is not only associated with Moses, but also with God and Aaron. God announces that several plagues will come over Egypt to free the Hebrews, but only God‟s hand is mentioned in this context (Ex 7: 4.5.17). Afterwards Aaron is connected to the word “hand”. He executes the first three plagues by stretching his hand out (Ex 7: 19, 8: 5.6.17). Subsequently, Moses‟ hand triggers (Ex 9: 22, 10: 12.21.22), but also terminates (Ex 9: 29.33) the seventh, eighth and ninth plague. The last and most brutal plague is executed by God (Ex 12: 12). In the novel Moses always lifts his hand (Hurston 2016: 142, 151, 154, 163). Thereby, Moses seems active and powerful, but also more vicious in the novel. Furthermore, Moses has planned the plagues himself (ibid. 147). He desires to perform all ten plagues and therefore does not want the Egyptians to “give in right away” (ibid. 146). In the Bible Moses does not aspire to execute a pre-designed plan; instead he follows God‟s orders gradually. The word “hoodoo”, which appears frequently in Moses, is of course never used in the Bible. The plagues are not interpreted as magic in the Bible; instead they are the result of God‟s intervention. They are called “miracle” (Ex 7: 9), “wonder” (Ex 7: 3, 11: 9.10) and “sign” (Ex 7: 3, 8: 23, 10: 1.2, 13: 9). As Karner argues, the Hebrew words for ת ֵ פוֹמ (“wonder”; Ex 7: 3.9, 11: 9.10) and תוֹא (“sign”/ “miracle”; Ex 7: 3.9, 8: 23, 10: 1.2, 13: 9) are strongly connected to God in the Bible. They demonstrate God‟s power, but do not suggest magical powers (Karner 2014). Although the Pharaoh calls for magicians to imitate God‟s wonders in the Bible, God‟s signs are never described as magical. Magic is connoted negatively in the Bible, as in the context of God‟s Commandments it is said that a witch must be killed (Ex 22: 18). Consequently, Moses, who is depicted as a law-abiding figure in the Bible, keeps his distance from sorcery. In the novel, however, the Pharaoh says that Moses uses hoodoo (Hurston 2016: 145) and the magicians claim that they have taught Moses magic tricks, for example the “stunt” (ibid. 156) of bringing frogs to Egypt. Hurston‟s Moses seems more powerful, even “supernatural” (ibid. 116) and godlike, due to his magical powers (Caron 2000: 98). In the novel Moses‟ mighty arm and the image of a powerful leader connected therewith is frequently emphasized, which concords with “African, Haitian, and African-American traditions” (Britt 2004: 33). Moses is admired because of his strength and not because of his allegiance to God and his laws. In the Bible God is in the center of attention, but in the novel the focus is set on Moses, which is already revealed in the book title - Moses is the one standing on the mountain. In contrast, in the Bible God has his realm on the mountain and Moses climbs up from time to time with God‟s permission. In the novel Moses is not in need of “a god” Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 55 (Hurston 2016: 128); instead he can act independently. The role of God in the novel is undermined by depicting Moses instead of God as the powerful protagonist. Caron (2000: 98) argues that the ascription of magical powers, constructing Moses as “larger than life” is necessary to depict him as a powerful deliverer of hope. Moreover, Moses is compared to the Haitian god Damballa. Hurston already draws the comparison in the author‟s introduction when she says that Moses is identified with Damballa (Hurston 2016: viii). Damballa is worshipped in Haiti, but has his origins in the African kingdom of Dahomey (Hurston 2016: viii). Thus, by associating Moses with Damballa, the connection to Africa becomes more apparent. In the novel Moses only talks to the Pharaoh on Wednesdays (ibid. 150, 153, 157, 158, 165). Birch recognizes a connection in the choice of this weekday because the Haitian god Damballa always performed hoodoo on Wednesdays (1994: 65). Moreover, Damballa is called the serpent god (ibid. 65). The serpent is very important in the novel. Moses‟ rod in the novel looks like a serpent; thereby, the rod symbolizes Moses‟ power and his connection to the Haitian god Damballa (Hurston 2016: viii). The serpent “is omnipresent in hoodoo iconography” (Wall 1989: 674) and it recurs frequently in the novel (Hurston 2016: 52, 59, 119, 126, 143). Moses‟ friend Mentu tells him wise men “enter the serpents” (ibid. 52). Moses‟ rod of power looks like a serpent and it is turned into a serpent during the divine revelation as a sign of God‟s power (ibid. 126). This account can also be found in the biblical story. The word “serpent” appears five times in Exodus (Ex 4: 3, 7: 9.10.12.15). Consequently, it can be assumed that the serpent is also important in the biblical story, but it is mentioned more often in the novel. Furthermore, the connection between the serpent and magic is more striking in the novel. In the Bible God demonstrates his power by turning the rod into a serpent (Ex 4: 3) and by letting Aaron repeat this action (Ex 7: 9.10.12.15). Thus, Aaron is charged with implementing God‟s plan. In the novel Moses transforms the rod into a serpent himself. Moses is called a hoodoo man by Egyptians, by Hebrews, and by his wife and her family (Hurston 2016: 114, 144, 145). The word “hoodoo” is strongly associated with African traditions in America. 2 Birch (1994: 65) concludes that Moses appears powerful in the novel due to his applied “African magic.” In contrast, God empowers Moses in the Bible. In the novel Moses is already powerful before the divine revelation, which takes place in chapter 17. During his time in Egypt his “military genius” (Hurston 2016: 50) and his physical strength are admired. He frees Jethro and his family from their cousins‟ exploitation by afflicting 2 In the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2011) hoodoo is defined as magic with a West African origin, which is performed in the Caribbean and the US. Julia Zeppenfeld 56 frogs on them (ibid. 112-114), he performs magic in Midian by turning water into blood (ibid. 116), and defeats the deathless snake, which guards the book of Thoth (ibid. 119). These powerful actions all happen before the divine revelation. In the Bible the divine revelation forms the turning point of the Exodus story, which takes place at the beginning (Ex 3). Before this, the situation of the Hebrews is depicted (Ex 1), Moses‟ birth is briefly described (Ex 2: 1-10), and Moses‟ murder of an Egyptian (Ex 2: 11-14) and his flight to Midian are recounted (Ex 2: 15-22). The events before the divine revelation do not seem to be as important as the subsequent events because they are only described briefly. In proportion to the remaining Exodus story, little is put into writing about the time before the divine revelation (3 of 40 chapters). In contrast, the time before the divine revelation in Moses is enriched with many details (16 of 40 chapters). Whereas the focus in the Bible is on Moses‟ life as God‟s mediator, Moses and his personal development are illustrated extensively in the novel. Thereby, Hurston‟s Moses seems independent from God and is depicted as the center of attention. This confirms Hurston‟s statement in the author‟s introduction that Moses “is worshipped as a god” (Hurston 2016: viii) in African traditions. He is not worshipped because he delivered the Ten Commandments, but due to his own power and his ability to lead people out of poor conditions. As Young argues, Moses is “[n]o longer a stern lawgiver of the Israelites, […] [but] first and foremost, a conjuror” (2008: 11). In contrast to many of her African American contemporaries, Hurston writes about hoodoo, although it was considered superstitious and illiterate (Bell 1987: 32). She challenges this prejudice by combining literacy, intelligence, nobility, and the ability to perform hoodoo in the figure of Moses. Thereby, she demonstrates pride in African American traditions. It is not about assimilation and unification, but about the illustration of diversity and consciousness. As Farebrother states, hoodoo is “a unique cultural product of the African diaspora” (2007: 339). The reader connects hoodoo to African American traditions. According to Bell, Hurston achieves “a realistic portrayal of the ways in which ordinary black folk used religion, music, humor, and language” (1987: 129). Hurston does not exclude themes which could be evaluated negatively or could confuse the reader. In the Pentateuch magic is criticized (Ex 22: 18, Lev 19: 31, Lev 20: 6.27, Deut 18: 10.11) and magicians are supposed to be punished. By letting Moses perform hoodoo, Hurston‟s Moses differs from the biblical Moses and questions the established biblical concept of Moses. Hurston reinterprets and alters the “static text” (West 2005: 147) of the Bible. It is not about being faithful to the biblical text, but about using a well-known narrative to “challenge […] prevailing views of Moses” (Britt 2004: 34). By including folklore and hoodoo, the narrative becomes more relevant to the African American readership. With the help of Moses African American religious traditions will be passed on. Hurston Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 57 stresses that “[n]egro folklore is not a thing of the past” (Caron 2000: 97), but instead a perpetual and topical process. 3. “Asking Nature her secrets” — Moses and Nature Besides hoodoo, nature is an empowering source for Moses in the novel. In his childhood, he spends much of his time in nature and he is interested in extending his knowledge about “plants” (Hurston 2016: 37) and “animals” (ibid. 38). He talks to “gardeners” (ibid. 37), and Mentu, who is a “stableman” (ibid. 39), becomes a person of significance for Moses. Both professions are closely linked to nature. Moses asks many science-oriented questions, but also religious questions concerning the creation of the world. The creation story is the first text in the Bible and thereafter, the theme of creation is taken up frequently, e.g. in the form of prayers about God‟s gratitude (Ps 104) or in the form of admonitions (Matthew 5: 24). Thus, nature is always connected to God. The word “nature” is not used in the Bible; instead “creation” is used, which emphasizes a relationship of dependence. The Creator is essential for the origin of nature. In the novel nature appears independent from God. At first, Moses sees a connection between nature and God. He is interested in the origins of the earth and asks many questions using the interrogative pronoun “who”. It can be deduced that he is fascinated by nature, but even more by its creation, and more specifically, by its Creator. Mentu responds by telling a creation story that differs from the biblical creation story. Thereby, Hurston illustrates that there are various stories of the same event. Subsequently, Mentu tells Moses about Thoth‟s book, which empowers its reader and brings him closer to nature (Hurston 2016: 53). Thereupon, Moses strives to find Thoth‟s book. Thoth is an Egyptian god of science and literacy, but also of magic (Budge 1969: 414). In the figure of Thoth, literacy and hoodoo are connected, which is comparable to the figure of Moses in the novel. Furthermore, Thoth is closely related to nature because Thoth is depicted as a human-animal hybrid in iconography, consisting of a human body and a head either of an ibis or a baboon. Moreover, Thoth is associated with natural light because he is a moon god and a communication partner of the sun god Ra (ibid. 402). Sun and moon have an impact on nature; for example on tides, climate and vegetation. The book of Thoth alludes to the Egyptian tale Setna and the Magic Book (Meisenhelder 2015: 125). It is suggested in the novel that Judaism is rooted in Egyptian religious traditions (Farebrother 2007: 341) because Moses first encounters Egyptian deities and afterwards receives God‟s order and the divine laws. Only after reading in the book of Thoth does he seem “ready for the big job” (Hurston 2016: 120). Meisenhelder argues that Hurston not only emphasizes that Judaism has Julia Zeppenfeld 58 its origins in Egyptian religious traditions, but also that Moses identifies with “Egyptian and pagan [traditions] rather than [with] Hebraic and monotheistic tradition[s]” (2015: 125). Thoth is not mentioned in the Bible. Farebrother argues that the integration of Egyptian religious traditions could undermine monotheism and thus they are not mentioned in the Bible (2007: 339). Nature is a source of inspiration for Moses in the novel. In times of confusion he goes “on asking Nature her secrets” (Hurston 2016: 123). There he is “at peace” (ibid. 123). Whereas “Nature” is capitalized in the novel, “god” is written in lower case letters. Thus, nature is portrayed as the superior concept. After God‟s revelation, Hurston‟s Moses questions God‟s order and calls him “a god” (ibid. 128). In this context the indefinite article “a” signifies that there are other gods. Thus, the monotheistic concept is negated. Moreover, the choice of the indefinite article “a” instead of the definite article “the” suggests that Moses has not accepted God completely, but feels a disconnection. Besides, Hurston‟s Moses does not speak about God‟s laws, but about the “law of Nature” (ibid. 79). However, at the end of his life, he sees a connection between God and nature and before he dies, he wants to “ask God and Nature questions.” (ibid. 285) Both words are capitalized and thus seem to be equally significant to him. Overall, nature is an important aspect in the novel and competes with, but also complements, Moses‟ experiences with God. Nature is more relevant in the novel than in the Bible, which is apparent from frequent references and capitalization. It forms a source of inspiration without a divine connection in the novel. By contrast, in Scripture nature is closely related to God. God is the creator of nature. Ijatuyi-Morphé stresses that nature is an important aspect of African religious traditions (2014: 47). On the one hand, “natural phenomena and objects are intimately associated with God” (Mbiti 2015: 48), and on the other hand, nature is perceived as religious in itself (Ijatuyi-Morphé 2014: 47). Hurston succeeds in underlining nature‟s importance and thereby imbeds African religious traditions in her novel. Birch states that it is a “pre-Christian” (1994: 67) concept to perceive nature as religious. Consequently, Hurston‟s Moses is not only depicted according to the Judeo-Christian concept, but also other religious traditions are perceptible. In the figure of Moses various religious traditions are coalesced. Scholars have stated that Hurston thereby emphasizes that the Judeo-Christian religion is rooted in Egyptian and African religious traditions (Young 2008: 14; Farebrother 2007: 341). Thus, she criticizes the claim of singularity and novelty of monotheistic religions. Hurston wants to stress the peril of monotheism (Lackey 2009: 582). Due to the claim of singularity other religious traditions have been suppressed in the twentieth century (Lackey 2011: 107). Hurston counters the claim of primacy by illustrating and appreciating diversity. Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 59 Moses is a significant and exceptional recreation of the biblical Exodus narrative profoundly changing the religious text. She kept cornerstones of the story and the names of characters and locations, but changed behavior patterns, character traits, and actions. She extended and shortened various biblical extracts. Hurston‟s Moses is influenced by various religious and cultural traditions and his character is multifaceted. The display and appreciation of diversity is a key subject for Hurston. Thereby, she negates homogenization and assimilation and challenges the reader to question prefabricated concepts and portrayals. The figure of Moses is suitable for this strategy because there is one dominant concept of Moses, namely the biblical concept, which was also accepted by mainstream African American thinking. Hurston illustrates that the biblical concept is not the only concept of Moses, but that there are various concepts which are equally genuine. By foregrounding nonbiblical aspects, Hurston‟s Moses becomes a unique and complex figure. In this paper I have focused on the non-biblical aspects Hurston brought into the story, many of which are closely linked to African American religious and cultural traditions. The ancestry of Moses remains ambiguous in the novel. Many characters suggest that Moses is an Egyptian and he himself feels insecure and torn between two cultures. He cannot be categorized in terms of his ethnicity. Thompson, therefore, calls him a “singular (yet hybrid) cultural figure” (2004: 397). Thereby, the figure of Moses contradicts the habit of categorizing people in terms of race and ethnicity throughout the twentieth century. In the novel the discussion about race and ethnicity leads to displeasure and isolation. Yet, this is not the only reason for Moses‟ struggle in the novel. His role as a leading figure forms a burden, too. He develops negatively and becomes more brutal and unlikeable in the course of his leadership. Hurston challenges the reader by questioning the ideal concept of Moses. Hurston‟s Moses is complex and multifaceted. She questions the perception of him as the ideal leader and thereby questions the concept of leadership in general. Moses also differs from the biblical concept due to his power and sovereignty. He is an independent decision-maker and -executor. Whereas Moses is the key figure in the novel, God plays a minor role. Moses‟ strength is frequently underlined and God‟s almightiness undermined. The aspect of Moses performing hoodoo is the most striking innovation in the novel. Whereas magic is connoted negatively in the Bible, it is a charismatic and significant character trait of Moses in the novel. There is a strong association between hoodoo and African American religious traditions. Thus, the integration of the hoodoo motif shows that Hurston desires to incorporate various religious traditions. Whereas African American writers of Hurston‟s time avoided the topic of hoodoo, it forms a distinct feature in Moses. Hurston‟s Moses receives power from God and hoodoo, but there is no power hierarchy - neither seems superior. Julia Zeppenfeld 60 The same is true for the relationship between nature and God. Both form a source of inspiration for Moses in the novel. Nature often seems more influential, but there finally is no power hierarchy. Hurston challenges her readers by creating complex and hybrid characters. Categorization based on ethnicity is destabilized as it causes isolation and agitation. To this day, this model is still highly important in American society. Political speeches embrace the thought of forming an inand outgroup based on ethnic or national grounds to “make America great again”, but instead they create a deeply divided nation rather than a strong community. Instead of the theological, the cultural aspect of the Exodus narrative is prioritized in Moses. Hurston‟s novel Moses, Man of the Mountain is a convincing rewriting of the biblical Exodus narrative cherishing cultural and religious diversity. References Bell, Bernard (1987). The Afro-American Novel and Its Tradition. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Birch, Eva Lennox (1994). Black American Women's writing: A Quilt of Many Colours. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Britt, Brian (2004). Rewriting Moses: The Narrative Eclipse of the Text. London: T & T Clark International. Budge, Ernest Alfred Wallis (1969). The Gods of the Egyptians. Vol 1. Chicago: Dover. Callahan, Allen Dwight (2006). The Talking Book: African Americans and the Bible, New Haven: Yale University Press. Caron, Timothy Paul (2000). Struggles Over the Word: Race and Religion in O'Connor, Faulkner, Hurston, and Wright. Macon: Mercer University Press. Delbanco, Andrew (1997). “The Political Incorrectness of Zora Neale Hurston.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 18. 103-108.1 Farebrother, Rachel (2007). “Moses and Nation-Building: Zora Neale Hurston's Moses, Man of the Mountain and Edward Said's Freud and the Non-European.” Comparative American Studies 5/ 3. 333-356. Farrar, Hayward (2005). “The Black Soldier in Two World Wars.” In Alton Hornsby (ed.). A Companion to African American History. Malden: Blackwell. 349-363. Gertz, Jan (2008). “Mose.” Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. [online] www.bibelwissen Zora Neale Hurston’s Moses, Man of the Mountain 61 schaft.de/ wibilex/ dasbibellexikon/ lexikon/ sachwort/ anzeigen/ details/ mose/ ch/ 5 d463 bad69 ed228c129e66cf519cf08b (accessed 04 Jan 2018). “Hoodoo.” (2011). American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 5 th ed. Hurston, Zora Neale (2007). A Life in Letters. Ed. Carla Kaplan. New York: Anchor. Hurston, Zora Neale (2016). Moses, Man of the Mountain. New York: Harper Perennial. Ijatuyi-Morphé, Randeeyle (2014). Africa's Social and Religious Quest: A Comprehensive Survey and Analysis of the African Situation. Blue Ridge Summit: UPA. Kaplan, Carla (2015). “„Betwixt and between‟: Zora Neale Hurston In - and Out - of Harlem.” In Cherene Sherrard-Johnson (ed.). A companion to the Harlem Renaissance. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 231-247. Karner, Gerhard (2014). “Wunder/ Wundergeschichten (AT).” Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. [online] www.bibelwissenschaft.de/ wibilex/ dasbibellexik on/ lexikon/ sachwort/ anzeigen/ details/ wunder-wundergeschichten.at/ ch/ 19 195b0f647291a0ffb3abaca171d4e7 (accessed 04 Jan 2018). Krüger, Thomas (2016). “Recht (R.).” In Angelika Berlejung & Christina Frevel (eds.). Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe zum Alten und Neuen Testament. Studienausgabe (HGANT). Darmstadt: WBG. 371-372. Lackey, Michael (2009). “Moses, Man of Oppression: A Twentieth-Century African American Critique of Western Theocracy.“ African American Review 43/ 4. 577- 588. Lackey, Michael (2011). “Zora Neale Hurston‟s Herod the Great: A Study of the Theological Origins of Modernist Anti-Semitism.” Callaloo 3/ 1. 100-120. Mbiti, John Samuel (2015). African Religions & Philosophy. 2 nd ed. Illinois: Waveland Press. McCaskill, Nolan D. (2016). “Trump's favorite Bible verse: 'Eye for an eye'.” Politico.com. [online]. www.politico.com/ blogs/ 2016-gop-primary-live-update s-and-results/ 2016/ 04/ trump-favorite-bible-verse-221954 (accessed 04 Jan 2018). Meisenhelder, Susan Edwards (2015). Hitting a Straight Lick with a Crooked Stick: Race and Gender in the Work of Zora Neale Hurston. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press. Rasberry, Vaughn (2015). “The „Lost Years‟ or a „Decade of Progress‟? : African American Writers and the Second World War.” In Cherene Sherrard-Johnson (ed.). A Companion to the Harlem Renaissance. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 403-422. The Bible (1611). Authorized Version (King James Version). Thompson, Mark Christian (2004). “National Socialism and Blood-Sacrifice in Zora Neale Hurston‟s Moses, Man of the Mountain.” African American Review 38/ 3. 395-415. Wall, Cherly A (1989). “Mules and Men and Women: Zora Neale Hurston's Strategies of Narration and Visions of Female Empowerment.” Black American Literature Forum 23/ 4. 661-680. West, Elizabeth (2017). “How WWI Sparked an Artistic Movement That Transformed Black America.” The Conversation Trust (UK) Limited. [online]. https: / / thecon-versation.com/ how-world-war-i-sparked-the-artistic-movement -that-transform-ed-black-america-74974 (accessed 04 Jan 2018). West, Margaret Genevieve (2005). Zora Neale Hurston & American Literary Culture. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Julia Zeppenfeld 62 Wright, Melanie Jane (2003). Moses in America. The Cultural Uses of Biblical Narrative. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, Jason. (2008). “Of Moses, Mules, and Men: Zora Neale Hurston and the Politics of Folk Art.” Obsidian: literature & arts in the African diaspora 9/ 1. 9-19. Julia Zeppenfeld Technische Universität Dortmund